Some Relevant Cases:

Our attorneys have achieved the following results for our clients:

• We filed a bid protest on behalf of an 8(a) client who had been excluded from a competition prior to oral presentations.  As a result of our assertions that the basis for exclusion raised issues of offeror responsibility which required a referral to the Small Business Administration under its Certificate of Competency program, the agency took prompt corrective action and re-admitted our client to the competition in time for them to participate in oral presentations.
•  
• Our firm protested a Department of State award of a contract for security guard services. We were able to show that the agency's price evaluation methodology, designed to deal with differing vendor assumptions about compensation subject to the Service Contract Act, was fatally flawed. GAO engaged in an outcome prediction type of ADR procedure to resolve the protest. GAO subsequently issued a written decision recommending that the agency reimburse the protester its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. Intercon Security Services, Inc.; CASS, a Joint Venture-Costs, B-284534.3, .et seq. (March 14, 2001).

• In an intervention on behalf of the awardee, we assisted the Department of Veterans Affairs in establishing that its decision to award a contract for health and welfare programs at multiple sites to the higher priced, higher rated offeror, was reasonable.   GAO denied the protestor's allegations regarding the evaluation of offerors costs and the sufficiency of discussions.  Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., B-285048.3, et seq., (January 22, 2001).

• We successfully protested an evaluation conducted under a GSA FSS Schedule contract on the grounds that the agency had used an overly mechanistic process for evaluating past performance and ignored other relevant past performance data in its possession. GAO recommended that the agency re-evaluate task order proposals and make new awards, and it did so. OSI Collection Services, Inc., B-286597, B-286597.2, (Jan. 17, 2001).

• In another intervention, we assisted the General Services Administration in defending its award of a contract to a higher priced, higher rated proposal. In this decision, the GAO sanctioned the attribution of past performance by one team partner to the other for purposes of the evaluation. Wackenhut Services, Inc., B-276012,   98-1 CPD  ¶ (1998).

• We protested an agency's decision to overlook the awardee's late submission of its best and final offer in making the award decision. GAO agreed with us that the agency could not make an award on the bidders initial offer, which had expired, nor on the late submitted BAFO. GAO directed the agency to cancel its award and award the work to our client as the low, technically acceptable offeror. CCL, Incorporated, B-251527, B-251527.2, 93-1 CPD  ¶ 354 (1993)

• This protest involved the issue of whether or not the awardee had engaged in an improper "bait & switch" by offering various key personnel in its proposal without a reasonable belief that the offered personnel would be available at the time of award. GAO sustained our protest on this ground, finding that the awardee had misrepresented the availability of several key personnel in its response to agency discussions. CBIS Federal Inc., 71 Comp. Gen. 319, 92-1 CPD ¶ 308 (1992).